tv Forbes on FOX FOX Business July 14, 2013 2:00am-2:31am EDT
>> long-term it is great. i don't know how much longer and i love anything withr. buffet. >> guys, thank you very much, that will do it. >> you think it is just your privacy under attack? try your wallet. to how much phone companies are charging the u.s. government for the u.s. surveillance and the government is paying for it wth a tax paying money. is this an outrage? or if it keeps us safe is it a small price to pay? welcome to forbes on fox. i am elizabeth mcdonald filling in for david asbin. wel go to john and rick and we welcome dan mitchell today. we have a great crew, john, what do you think? >> even if the wire taps were
free, they wouldn't be worth it. too often in modern times we gave up liberty under the false assumption that people in the federal government who are fallible can protect us. it is a risk to take. in a fro society there is risk but worth it to live with this. we should defend it. >> to john's point, wat is weird, spying can be a profit center. >> military and industrial complexes are inficient and will have corruption. it is not bean ball when we play with islamic terrorism and the new information cold war with china and russia and not a war we c finish second in. i think it is a murky area. john brings up a lot of points, but our liberties are dependent
on our safety, o. >> sabrina, what rich is saying, there is no bigger civil violation being murdered on the way to work in your commute. let me lay it out to you. local la enforcement have paid for wiretaps since 1994. under the clinton administration they set aside a half billion bucks for it. and so the question is, what is the right way to go? should taxpayer pay for the spying or not. >> i am with john on this. this is not a conversation apprimate taxes or terrorism. it is a question of our civil liberties and our constitution. we are live nothing a brave new world inhich the raditional military physical plant is no longer what wins war big data wins wars and we have to be extra vigilant to make sure privacy and liberties are protected. >> rick, the american viewer
will say we want to catch th terrorist and stop the bad guys, but when the irs has more information about us than before and the time when the consumer protection bureau and collecting information on everyone's credit card and mortgages and car loans, the american people say there may be limits to spying or all of this surveillance going on. >> and we'll be careful and it issed kind of wiretaps are not what you are reading about in the data and the nsa, and these wiretaps are resulted from a court and these are the wiretaps that are used to listen in on mobsters that are brought down by the wiretappers and now we are focused on terrorist, not just generally gathering material. >> let me have a quick follow-up with rick unger. the court is a cowed of being a rubber stamp and going back to
'79, they approved all of the surveillance request. and so what is the check and balances and paying for the information and there may be nominal fees. i think there should be a attorney representing the people. for important. those are not the media data. this is when there is a reason to go after them. if that is worth the money, you tell me? ift is breaking the law it is. >> to rick's point, we live in an age of nuclear terrorism and biosfoer. >> no one can trust the president of the united states. >> i trust him. >> you look at a p wiretaps and benghazi and deceptions of obama care and irs scandal. what you need is someone which would be the president, look this is the costs and this is
what we are doing with wiretapping in terms of the information and yes, it is worth it because it stops terrorist attacks. cnn, shows polls that 58 percent of the people don't trust the president when it comes to wiretaps. that is far worse than with president bush. you need a leader and somebody in the country can trust. we don't he that. >> to mike's point. and welcome dan mitchell and so good you are with us. force this past week s point, said to them you didn't do viations of the law and you are in the clear and the guy in nsa walked out with a thumb drive of information. anybody can walk out with the information. and that i scary to the american people out there. do you think that there should be not just more checks a balances, but do you think that spying should be a profit center and make it more transparent so
we can stop the problems? >> i don't want to sound like a boring economist, we need cost benefit and analysis. is this another form of corporate welfare for the telecommunication companies? it sods like we are spending money for this that involve more than clicking a computer key board to start monitoring someone. we need the checks and balances and not only in a narrow cost benefit sense, buts john and sabrina was talking about. how about our liberties. do we want government collecting all of this information? yeah, i don't trust obama and i tonight trust bush either or the run of the mile bureaucrat. we have seen too many citizens harassed and targeted because a bureaucrat didn't does like them. we need to figure out how to control the ze and control of government. >> how do you do a cost- benefit
anysis on the value of tracking terrorist. and my family is priceless and i am sure you fee the same way about yours. >> hang on. sabrina go a. >> dan makes a point. but when business is at the service of the government, we are moving toward national socialm. it is serious. and not simply liberty versus terrorism, we have consider what it means long- term to this country. >> john, i want to make this clear. we are talking about whether taxpayers should pay for this information and whether spoiing ould be made a profit ceer and we know that dan mitchell is pointing out bureaucrats will leak information and our information can get out in the marketplace. how do you protect it and should it be a profit center? >> i don't think you can protect it. but going back to the point of whether we can trust obama, that is irrelevant.
we are going down a slippery road. eastbound if we can trust obama, there will be someone in the future who will use the information in a wrong way. it is not about bush or obama but what bureaucrats and politicians will do in the future. >> in order for people to make the decisions they need about the liberty they are willing to give up. they need to trust the man at the top. we will always have a president we hope, and to that end, you need to have someone you trust and amicans for good reason don't trust obama and that's the central issue here. >> rich, the final point. >> the central issue is life is murkout there and there is a lot of bad guys and this is a tough issue that we are going to have to work through. as i said before in the she, the constitution is not a suicide pact. >> thanks, gang. with our postal service flushing
privateitize, to. >> absolutely. privateizing would give it flexibility. the postal service is losing $20 million a day and needs to be privatized. >> what do you think, rick? >> the united states is not england. england is smaller count roar. you would have a lot of rural areas in this country that is way too expenve and you can't cut people off for mail service. big city, easy no problem. get rid of saturday, i am good with it. >> the uk is the size of lewisville and the united states post will service delivers half a billionlers and packages a day versus what the uk is doing. fed exhas a therd of the costs going to labor and in the u.s. postal service 80 percent of the
costs go to labor. >> the u.s. constitution actually gives the deral government to r a postal service unlike the housing and department of agriculture. but that doesn't moan it has to. look at countries like germ no that has privatid postal system. and canada privatized the air traffic control. and sweden private schools are taking over there. and australia privatizedthe social security system. this is the way of the future if we want low cost government with better services. if someone is live nothing a rural aa they should pay more just like if you live in the city pay for mass transit. >> by the way, 90 percent of the mail is siness junk mail. sabripa, what do you make of dan mitchell's point. would a local rural individual have to pay more if you privatized? >> we don't set policy based on
the outloyers inhe marketplace, businesses that don't adapt fail all of the time. blockbuster was a bad business mod and he will failed to modern noise and net flicks came in and replaced them, the problem is, the u.s. postal service h to beg and barter with congress. it is an inefficient system and should be privatized and more way it save tax dollars and more efficient over all. snshg the u.s. postal service is living off loans in the treasury. the thing is, we all talked about how government can work as a business. make the postal service act like a business. it is not in shopping malls or drug stores, and maybe that is an idea to consider, too, rich. >> they are not capable of. it i am a big fan of ups and fed exand they are tremendously run companies. i agree oddly enough with rick unger on the point of rural
service. we have to figure it out. and the point is of paying more, there is a lot of poverty in the rural areas and i tonight know if they can pay more. >> what do make of the point. if you privatize it will drive people's cost up for the u.s. postal service. >> i think they make a agreement for privatization.n. the market is about solving problems a removing upease. the postal service does it in a unserviceable way. if you privatize it, you will quickly so that marts and capitalism will solve the rural problem in a way people would like. >> i don't agree withthat. they will just go northern. and i enjoy dan from the ca d do institute a good solid libertarian and talking up the good european government.
that doesn't happen often. >> i am perfectly willing to give crediwhere credit is do. i wont want to live in the countries, but they are making good decisions on how to deliver services at a lower cost. >> an honest man. >> rich, you want to jump in? >> look, i am not sure to john's point that the market can solve the sparsely populated market problems. the rural parts of the united states are lack nothing broad band communication. it is a real problem. i am for 90 percent privatization and you have to cope smaller communities in mind in some way. >> gang, you are terrific there. and hanitty on the insanity as the battle for immigration reform heats up in the new york city. and eric bowling on cashin in.
having kids for financial reasons. we have already. >>absolutely, it is a big thing. you can't start until you are financially stable. >> young adults telling the crew that they are postponing parent hood. they are not alone, the u.s. birth rate falling to a record low as the economy remains shaky. is that bad news for the economy going forward? >> i think it is bad news and i am not saying that because my three little ones are watching the show today. we are talking about marriage and starting a family asif it is all costs. the reality is, when you have a family, they are vital stabilizing forces that the economy benefits from. >> rick what do you think? >> in the main it is noughteral and i am not sure it benefits. i would say it is good. e reason the younger generation are using heads and
not hearts and making decisions based on what is sensible and that is good omen for the economy. >> rich, you are a student of the economy. after the greatat depression, t birth rate dropped and then the baby boon and then the economic growth. what sd does it mean for the trend here? >> i think it is a bad development and means that the u.s. is following europe and japan to a very bad place. i am with sabrina on the fact that when you are a man, and i think for women also, this disciplines you and you have to focus on the fut and you are you are responsible suddenly for a family. it is a good thing overa. we have an t bomb. the young people are supporting the retired? >> dan, president clinton said the baby boom was turning into a senior boom. what does the trend moan for the
u.s. economy and government going forward? >> in the long run if we follow japan and europe toemographic suicide. a small welfare state is unaffordable with that democrat democratic profile. a bad government policy with a big welfare state will drive down birth rates and that is happening in europe and beginning to happenn the u.s. that will feedback in the welfare states being una fortedable. you can't tell them have more kids, but you have to give people mor freedom and then household fortion and kids. >> big government is wrecking the young adults who want more kids. go a head. >> he may be right, but i don't find comllg the death and
birth causing suicide ark round the world. we live in inner- connected global economy. the idea that one country's wirth rates will harm is not compelling. a lack of economic freedom is far more economically corosive than low birth rates whh are an affect of low growth. >> what dan was saying right on. our tax system for instance. it incent voices people behave in certain ways. we want to get government out of the way people make decisions for their families that are best. marria and family, it should not be dictated by our government. >> we have to leave i there. coming up. law makers want to put a national park on the moon and the price for that maye astronomical. but we have affordable stocks that are out of
and gone through hard times. i am a believer. >> love their desktops and brand. but phones and tablets are putting them out of business. >> cope it right here. the business block continues th eric boling and cashin in. >> and the fight over illegal immigration heats up on capitol hill shawn is entering the ring on the best plan for america and gop push to dope six the health care law getting traction. yes. and something that the president did is the reason. walmart standing up a dc shakedown. this is cashin' in, it starts right now. hi, i am eric boling and welcome to cashin' in and we'll go explore the latest in washington, but first joining me